RECENT  POSTS:  » Joseph Farah still clueless about nondiscrimination law » Hobby Lobby president to join extremely anti-gay activists at 'Star Spangled' event » FRC's Sprigg admits his side put up 'weak defense' in 7th Circuit » Photo: The latest totally convincing, in no way silly attempt at a meme from anti-gay Ruth Institute » AFA's Fischer: Time for Christians to 'get up in somebody's grill' like Jesus would » GLAAD: The World Congress of Families sparks protests in Australia. Let's examine why. » GLAAD: NOM cofounder: 'Hard to see... the logical stopping place' between gay-affirming, murder-affirming Christians » 'Nonpartisan' NOM's entrenched Republicanism again showing » GLAAD: His other tactics failing, NOM president turns to anti-trans fear-mongering » AFA's Bryan Fischer: Diversity is 'most sinister and dangerous lie'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

04/24/2009

Nudging the gavel? CA official sends a friendly 'btw'

by Jeremy Hooper

We're pretty sure that following document, which we obtained by a public record request to the CA court, is mostly procedural and will have little bearing on the California Supreme Court's eventual outcome on the Prop 8 matter. However, it is still nice to see that the State Solicitor General is reinforcing the "equal protection" element of the Iowa Supreme Court marriage ruling, an apparent attempt to encourage the CA Supremes to follow suit:


Hooper Jeremy ResAttach 04-23-09

We'll have to wait and see if this Iowa reminder (or anything) tips the court towards fairness. Though we sincerely hope they recycle, both this paper and the fairness that they put forth last May.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Thanks so much. I am supposed to get court notices, but didn't get this one. I was wondering how that could be done. Posted EVERYWHERE. .... for whatever, good it is, as you say.

Posted by: LOrion | Apr 24, 2009 2:40:12 PM

I think the Iowa ruling only reinforces the SCOCA's decision to uphold prop 8. Because now they can point to their own ruling of last year as having influenced the rulings in CT and IA (both rulings referred to CA's re: Marriages case), and therefore feel as if with good conscience that they've advanced the issue. And they have, however, that doesn't negate the fact that upholding 8 causes a whole host of new issues for minorities in the state.

Posted by: Bruno | Apr 24, 2009 4:44:55 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails